Mississippi Senate bills would nullify federal gun control

Two bills have been introduced in the Mississippi State Senate that would nullify unconstitutional federal gun control laws.

SB2465 and SB2831 were introduced in January. They explicitly forbid state personnel from banning or restricting gun ownership in any way, participating in a gun registry system, or confiscating any guns. In addition, SB2831 contains a provision that protects private property in the state from being seized as the result of an international treaty entered into by Congress.

SB2465 was authored by Sen. McDaniel with Sens. Watson, Sojourner, Massey, Smith, Hill and Harkins serving as the co-authors. SB2831 was authored by Sen. Sojourner with no co-authors. SB2465 has been sent to the Judiciary, Division A Committee while SB2831 has been sent to both the Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Committee and the Rules Committee. Both bills need to be passed by a majority vote within their committees before they will be considered by the full Senate.

State refusal to cooperate with acts violating the Second Amendment would render them virtually null and void in practice, especially if multiple states pass similar bills. The federal government depends on state and local agents to do just about everything. If enough states simply refuse to lift a finger to help the feds, it would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce,” as Judge Napolitano has said.

And states don’t have to cooperate under the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine. Even the Supreme Court agrees that the federal government cannot require, compel or coerce state agencies to cooperate in the implementation or enforcement of federal laws or programs. Four Supreme Court cases serve as the foundation of the anti-commandeering doctrine, with Printz v. US as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”